Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[tonyrey]

.

It is only awkward if we interpret the Bible literally.

Why?

 

[StAnastasia]

Maybe on some other planets God created beings that didn’t commit that sin and have been existing in their Eden for millenia, never having sinned and never dying.

They would live in their Eden until they died.

 

[Whadyamean]

They would live in their Eden until they died.

That is fascinating. But since we are not required to believe that the Garden story is literal, what about some other more practical application of that idea?

 

[StAnastasia]

That is fascinating. But since we are not required to believe that the Garden story is literal, what about some other more practical application of that idea?

Practical application of what idea?

 

[Whadyamean]

Practical application of what idea?

The Garden of Eden story. Sorry if my words weren’t clear.

 

[LittleSoldier]

They would live in their Eden until they died.

I’m sorry; I was not clear at all. I meant they would never die in the sense of being completely apart from God. They would die physically but would go straight to heaven.

Or is it possible to sin when one is living in Eden?

 

[reggieM]

They would die physically but would go straight to heaven.

If they didn’t sin, then they wouldn’t need the punishment of sin which is death. They would live forever. But this universe is temporal, not eternal, so they couldn’t live forever here.
Additionally, if they had to die in order to then go to heaven - then there’d be no reason for them to live in this universe.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’m sorry; I was not clear at all. I meant they would never die in the sense of being completely apart from God. They would die physically but would go straight to heaven.

All organic life is mortal, so presumably they would die.

Or is it possible to sin when one is living in Eden?

In the bible story “Adam and Eve” did sin while living in Eden

 

[LittleSoldier]

In the bible story “Adam and Eve” did sin while living in Eden

Of course they did! Perhaps I shouldn’t be posting today if I can’t even get THAT straight. I knew that! Little kids know that! But I think that perhaps I need to study the subject of Original Sin before I write any more foolish posts (that was really dumb of me).

It’s also kind of funny that a Catholic on a Catholic forum (with 5,000 posts under her belt) could make such an obvious error.

 

[StAnastasia]

Of course they did! Perhaps I shouldn’t be posting today if I can’t even get THAT straight. I knew that! Little kids know that! But I think that perhaps I need to study the subject of Original Sin before I write any more foolish posts (that was really dumb of me).

It’s also kind of funny that a Catholic on a Catholic forum (with 5,000 posts under her belt) could make such an obvious error.

Don’t be so hard on yourself!

 

[John21652]

Weren’t Adam and Eve in Eden before Original Sin? Maybe on some other planets God created beings that didn’t commit that sin and have been existing in their Eden for millenia, never having sinned and never dying.

Well, probably not but I think there is a small chance when thinking about the number of planets in the universe.

If there were other beings on other planets that didn’t sin, the question is, were they human beings?

If they were were human beings, why didn’t they make the same error as the human beings on Earth?

If they weren’t human beings, then they can’t have been made “in his image”, because we were and we’re human beings!

 

[StAnastasia]

If there were other beings on other planets that didn’t sin, the question is, were they human beings?

No. Homo sapiens – like dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches – is unique to the biological history of this planet. Species filling similar niches may have developed on other planets, but they would not be dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches and humans.

If they were were human beings, why didn’t they make the same error as the human beings on Earth?

I have argued that they would. I argue that life that develops on any planet with finite resources will fall into the same temptations of greed, arrogance, pride, and self-destructiveness. They would experience “the Fall” just as humans did.

If they weren’t human beings, then they can’t have been made “in his image”, because we were and we’re human beings!

This does not follow logically. Your argument has the form

If A then B.
Not A, therefore not B.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

StAnastasia

 

[tonyrey]

No. Homo sapiens – like dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches – is unique to the biological history of this planet. Species filling similar niches may have developed on other planets, but they would not be dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches and humans.

I have argued that they would. I argue that life that develops on any planet with finite resources will fall into the same temptations of greed, arrogance, pride, and self-destructiveness. They would experience “the Fall” just as humans did.

This does not follow logically. Your argument has the form

If A then B.
Not A, therefore not B.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

StAnastasia

Irrefutable!

 

[grannymh]

I argue that life that develops on any planet with finite resources will fall into the same temptations of greed, arrogance, pride, and self-destructiveness. They would experience “the Fall” just as humans did.

If there were a world deprived of God, this sentence “They would experience “the Fall” just as humans did.” (post 210) would not apply. Because on earth, what is known as “the Fall” in Catholicism requires one real God and one real first human being.

 

[John21652]

No. Homo sapiens – like dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches – is unique to the biological history of this planet. Species filling similar niches may have developed on other planets, but they would not be dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches and humans.

Why not? If the niches are similar, the occupants would at least be similar.

I have argued that they would. I argue that life that develops on any planet with finite resources will fall into the same temptations of greed, arrogance, pride, and self-destructiveness. They would experience “the Fall” just as humans did.

So finite resources is the key then?

This does not follow logically. Your argument has the form

If A then B.
Not A, therefore not B.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

StAnastasia

You have messed up the logical construction of the argument. I did not frame my argument the way you have. You also left out one premise.

The terms are -

A= God’s image
B= Humans (homo sapiens)
C= Aliens (-A)

All A are B
No B are C
Thereore no A are C

A Venn diagram will show you this is correct.

The only way it can be falsified is with a new conception of God’s image which will make B and C equivalent and that denies the premise, made by you, that there are no homo sapiens on other panets.

Or, in words -
Humans are in God’s image.
God has one image
No Humans are Aliens.

Therefore no Aliens are in God’s image.

Unless, of course, God has multiple images!
Or if there is more than one God.

 

[Whadyamean]

If there were a world deprived of God, this sentence “They would experience “the Fall” just as humans did.” (post 210) would not apply. Because on earth, what is known as “the Fall” in Catholicism requires one real God and one real first human being.

It also requires a particular interpretation, the one usual offered possibly being either inaccurate, or a lower order intro into the actual meaning of the story

 

[Whadyamean]

You have messed up the logical construction of the argument. I did not frame my argument the way you have. You also left out one premise.

The terms are -

A= God’s image
B= Humans (homo sapiens)
C= Aliens (-A)

All A are B
No B are C
Thereore no A are C

A Venn diagram will show you this is correct.

The only way it can be falsified is with a new conception of God’s image which will make B and C equivalent and that denies the premise, made by you, that there are no homo sapiens on other panets.

Or, in words -
Humans are in God’s image.
God has one image
No Humans are Aliens.

Therefore no Aliens are in God’s image.

Unless, of course, God has multiple images!
Or if there is more than one God.

The syllogism is “valid” if the the speaker is human. In another instance, all humans would be aliens. And you seem to presuppose that no alien is made in the image and likeness of God. You appear to assume you know what that “image” is, and you appear to assume that you know that God made no other humans in all the incomprehensible vastness of space. God did not tell us in the Bible that there were galaxies, eh? So would God, as improbable as such an act might be, “tell” us that “He” as well created other humans or aliens in His image and likeness, that image likely being something different than you assume? And is it any of our business?

And there would appear to be multiple images in the sense that each one is so created. And as for more than one God, there are as many mental gods as people make up to be their symbol of reference to what is incomprehensible, ineffable, and beyond reckoning. In other words, without direct knowledge of God, all thoughts about god are false due to being vastly incomplete, whatever logic one’s grammar uses to allow one to sense that they have knowledge. God is unknowable, so what is “known” about God is vastly stepped down to be “thinkable” by men and women not yet matured into a spirituality that opens other Ways.

 

[StAnastasia]

Why not? If the niches are similar, the occupants would at least be similar.

Agreed, but you implied the occupants would be identical. I agree with “similar,” but not with identical. I work with some exobiologists – biologists who study the parameters of biological life developing on other planets. Assuming planets with similar conditions, e.g., similar gravity, chemical makeup, water content, water-to-land ratio, temperature, vegetation, seasons, rotational velocity governing hours of daylights, etc. – exobiolgists assume that life might develop along similar lines to life on earth. That is, there would be food chains in sea and on land, and creatures would (through descent with modification) take advantage of water, air, earth, etc. for swimming, flying, burrowing, running, imagining, thinking, praying.

Although some biologists think intelligence is not necessarily selected for, others argue that there is important survival value to intelligence, and therefore it is likely that a creature would arise that would exploit increasing neural complexity, and would develop rationality, self awareness, moral responsibility, spiritual consciousness. A Christian we would interpret this process as God working immanently within creation, inviting creation to a moral and spiritual response.

So finite resources is the key then?

It is one key. Another is the innate tendency to sin and selfishness that seems to be original to creaturehood.

You have messed up the logical construction of the argument. I did not frame my argument the way you have. You also left out one premise.

I mapped the argument logically precisely as you outlined it.

All A are B

This premiss is an unproven assumption.

No B are C

True.

Thereore no A are C

False, because based on an unproven assumption.

The only way it can be falsified is with a new conception of God’s image which will make B and C equivalent and that denies the premise, made by you, that there are no homo sapiens on other panets.

Incorrect. My assumption that there are no Homo sapiens on other planets is based on the unique terrestrial history of Homo sapiens.

God has one image

An unproven assumption.

Unless, of course, God has multiple images!

Being God, God could have infinite images. However, I suspect that freewill, rationality and moral responsibility would be key components of any creaturely reflection of the divine image.

Or if there is more than one God.

Polytheism is not a coherent option.

 

[John21652]

The syllogism is “valid” if the the speaker is human. In another instance, all humans would be aliens. And you seem to presuppose that no alien is made in the image and likeness of God. You appear to assume you know what that “image” is, and you **appear **to assume that you know that God made no other humans in all the incomprehensible vastness of space. God did not tell us in the Bible that there were galaxies, eh? So would God, as improbable as such an act might be, “tell” us that “He” as well created other humans or aliens in His image and likeness, that image likely being something different than you assume? And is it any of our business?

And there would appear to be multiple images in the sense that each one is so created. And as for more than one God, there are as many mental gods as people make up to be their symbol of reference to what is incomprehensible, ineffable, and beyond reckoning. In other words, without direct knowledge of God, all thoughts about god are false due to being vastly incomplete, whatever logic one’s grammar uses to allow one to sense that they have knowledge. God is unknowable, so what is “known” about God is vastly stepped down to be “thinkable” by men and women not yet matured into a spirituality that opens other Ways.

Man on man, haven’t you got an itch you can’t scratch!

In post #209 I asked the following -

If there were other beings on other planets that didn’t sin, the question is, were they human beings?

If they were were human beings, why didn’t they make the same error as the human beings on Earth?

If they weren’t human beings, then they can’t have been made “in his image”, because we were and we’re human beings!

In post #210 St. Anastasia wrote -

No. Homo sapiens – like dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches – is unique to the biological history of this planet. Species filling similar niches may have developed on other planets, but they would not be dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches and humans.
…

They would experience “the Fall” just as humans did.

So, your rant about what it “seems” I presuppose and what it seems I assume, was totally misplaced. If I was assuming anything, or presupposing something, I wouldn’t be asking questions. You should try it sometime, asking questions I mean. You can learn heaps and it helps preventing yourself from looking silly.

 

[John21652]

Agreed, but you implied the occupants would be identical. I agree with “similar,” but not with identical.

Good, because I never mentioned “identical” and as you point out, even “similar” is speculative.

Although some biologists think intelligence is not necessarily selected for, others argue that there is important survival value to intelligence, and therefore it is likely that a creature would arise that would exploit increasing neural complexity, and would develop rationality, self awareness, moral responsibility, spiritual consciousness. A Christian we would interpret this process as God working immanently within creation, inviting creation to a moral and spiritual response.

Nueral complexity is a relative concept. Here, we are top of the tree, with moral reasoning, spiritual awareness, etc. On some other planet, my dog might be king.

It is one key. Another is the innate tendency to sin and selfishness that seems to be original to creaturehood.

You wrote “I argue that life that develops on any planet with finite resources will fall into the same temptations of greed, arrogance, pride, and self-destructiveness. They would experience “the Fall” just as humans did.”
You have listed “finite resources” as a developmental parameter. If you change a developmental parameter, then development itself will be changed. It requires a very high degree of nueral complexity and an awful lot of self awareness to come to the realisation that resources are finite. On a planet where my dog is king, the finiteness of resources would not matter, because the populations would self control. Human populations on earth have adapted to the finiteness of resources throughout history, but, and this is crucial, human development was a long way advanced before the recognition of, knowledge and understanding of the finite nature of resources was acknowledged as a permanent part of existence. I can’t see that it can even be used as a developmental parameter and therefore the finite nature of resources has nothing to do with “the fall” into sin, greed, arrogance, pride and/or self destuctiveness.

I mapped the argument logically precisely as you outlined it.

Nope. You swung one premise around the wrong way and left another out. I also said a venn diagram proves the validity of my syllogism. Did you try it? I did.
Let me state again, so we don’t have to keep retracing our steps -
The terms are -

A= God’s image
B= Humans (homo sapiens)
C= Aliens (-A)

All A are B
No B are C
Thereore no A are C

This premiss is an unproven assumption.

That ‘All A are B’ is true and correct and cannot be falsified. God made man in His image and we have no evidence that God made anything else in His image. No Biblical or other revelatory acounts of anything but man being made in God’s image.

True.

No B are C.
Good. We agree that, as you stated in an earlier post, humans are unique to earth. Any beings anywhere else are aliens. I use the term aliens to describe them as different and not simply because they come from another world.

False, because based on an unproven assumption.

That Thereore no A are C
Wrong.
It is true, based on an unfalsifiable premise, not an unproven assumption.
That no A are C is saying that nothing else has been made in God’s image.
If it is assumed that God made others, somewhere else, in His image, we have not been informed and so any premise to the contrary and any attempt at falsifying my premise is based on a series of assumption. And a very speculative ones at that!

Incorrect. My assumption that there are no Homo sapiens on other planets is based on the unique terrestrial history of Homo sapiens.

Wrong.
It doesn’t matter what you based your assumptions on, you unequivocally stated in post #210 the following -

No. Homo sapiens – like dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches – is unique to the biological history of this planet. Species filling similar niches may have developed on other planets, but they would not be dolphins and redwood trees and cockroaches and humans.

Therefore, whatever higher forms of life are to be found on other planets are not human and therefore are alien, written as No B are C and which you agreed with.

We know human’s are made in the image of God. Thus, ipso facto, for my conclusion to be refuted, then either we allow that other beings on other planets are human, or we allow that God’s “image” is far more complex than we have been led to believe abd it includes that which is Alien, not B.

An unproven assumption.

You wrote that under a quote which said God has one image. The only image of God we have access to is His creation of mankind. Therefore, the characteristics of His image must include human characteristics. Now, we have agreed that humans are not Aliens, so, for anything that is alien to be a part of His “image” would mean that we are not, in fact, made in His image. That is vastly different from what has been revealed to us.

Being God, God could have infinite images. However, I suspect that freewill, rationality and moral responsibility would be key components of any creaturely reflection of the divine image.

Possibly, true, but His image cannot contain contradictory aspects, such as human characteristics and alien characteristics, otherwise we have not been made in His image. The characteristics you list are human characteristics and if they are found as aspects of aliens on other planets, then perhaps they are not so alien.

Polytheism is not a coherent option.

Agreed.